Chaper 6 and 7

During the last few weeks, I have sort of gotten started on writing the sixth chapter in my second book. It’s about how an organized Swedish environmental movement started to emerge during the years around 1970. My point of entry into this theme is the youth organization Nature and Youth Sweden (Fältbiologerna), which I wrote about together with Anna Kaijser. Our article serves as a point of departure for the chapter, albeit supplemented by press material and other studies. 

The structure of the chapter is quite clear. I start by highlighting how a couple of hundred members gathered at Sergels Torg in Stockholm in March 1969 to protest against the expansion of hydro electric power in northern Sweden. This demonstration aroused a fair amount of media attention at the time. These young people were “no ordinary demonstrators.” The organization was associated with bird watching and outdoor life – not political manifestations. However, this would change in the years around 1970. Nature and Youth Sweden became an active and highly visible part of the new environmental movement. 

In order to show the effects of this transformation, I carry out a chronological review of the history of Nature and Youth Sweden from the late 1950s to the early 1970s. At the beginning of this period, the association is firmly rooted in an older tradition of nature conservation. The key aspects here include experiencing, studying and preserving wild nature. When a member of Nature and Youth Sweden talks about “environmental degradation” in 1961, it means that esthetic values are under threat. They are concerned that a highly productive cultural landscape with cultivated fields and pine and spruce trees will expand at the expense of the untouched expanses. 

A couple of years later, in the wake of Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring (1962), they start to discuss toxic substances and birds dying. But there is hardly any talk of a global environmental crisis threatening the survival of humankind. However, this theme will become important in the late 1960s. That is to say, after environmental issues have achieved their major breakthrough in Sweden in the fall of 1967. Initially, this is an incipient environmental movement taking shape. By the beginning of the 1970s, a radicalization has occurred. Nature and Youth Sweden makes a name for itself in the form of demonstrations and direct actions. A particular target is the environmental policy establishment in the form of the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency. 

I expect the above to result in about 15 pages of text. That’s not enough for a chapter. That is why I plan to spend another 5 to 7 pages on, based on other research, adopting a broader approach to the emerging environmental movement. This includes Carl Holmberg’s study of the Centre Party’s Youth Organization, Jonas Anshelm’s analyses of the Swedish Society for Nature Conservation and Per Lundin’s unpublished study on the activist scientist Björn Gillberg and the establishment of Miljöcentrum (Environmental Center). I have also collected some press material that may supplement my presentation. 

The end of the chapter is to focus on the media controversies surrounding Björn Gillberg. This serves as somewhat of a bridge to the seventh and final empirical chapter in my book, which will concern open conflicts and conflicting claims of knowledge. This is something characterizing how environmental knowledge and knowledge regarding the future circulated in Swedish society in the early 1970s. During the breakthrough phase in 1967–1968, there was a strong consensus regarding the gravity of environmental issues, and Hans Palmstierna served as somewhat of a unifying figure in this regard. In 1971, when this knowledge had started to be translated into politics and law, it was no longer the case that everyone agreed with each other. In 1971, for example, Hans Palmstierna ended up in an open conflict with representatives of the industrial sector. In the spring of 1972, a polarized debate on the future raged between two professors, the “prophet of doom” Gösta Ehrensvärd and the “techno-scientific optimist” Tor Ragnar Gerholm. 

However, actually writing chapter 7 will be a task for 2020. Before I can start working on that, there is a lot more I need to finish. To begin with, writing chapter 6 has turned out to be more difficult than I anticipated. I’m not really sure why. It’s not that it has completely ground to a halt, but writing two pages a day is certainly not doable. Perhaps this is due to the lack of sunlight in November? Perhaps I have too many things going at the same time? Or perhaps it’s simply due to a long book project and a long semester starting to take their toll.

---------

Do you want to sign up for the blogs mailing-list? Send an e-mail to david.larsson_heidenblad@hist.lu.se

Research from scratch

The book I’m writing has emerged over the course of five years. In addition to the introductory and final chapter, it will consist of six empirical chapters. Most of these are based on studies I have already carried out and published. The primary purpose of my book is to collect the different studies and give me room to make four to five significant points. In addition, I want to make my research available to more people through the book format. 

There are a number of advantages associated with this approach of going from journal articles to books. Not least the fact that I can write the actual book relatively quickly. Some chapters only require a slight revision of previous works. The fourth chapter, which I wrote before the summer vacation, was an example of this. This chapter is called “Två kvinnliga pionjärer” (Two Female Pioneers) and focuses on how journalist Barbro Soller and historian Birgitta Odén at the same time – but in different ways – developed a strong environmentalist commitment. This resulted in their lives and careers changing course. Here, my work primarily concerned translating my own text from English into Swedish (Soller) and making a journal article shorter (Odén). 

However, the chapter I’m currently working on, the fifth, has a completely different character. It is, to refer to Martin Ericsson, “research from scratch.” This chapter is based on Hans Palmstierna’s personal archives and is mainly based on letters. In the late fall of 1967, Palmstierna became Sweden’s first truly influential environmentalist – something highly noticeable in the correspondence that has survived. From this time until his death in 1975, a lot of people wrote letters to him. I may thus use these letters to get insights into the chain reaction of activity initiated by the breakthrough of environmental issues in Swedish society. Analyzing this material is incredibly fascinating. 

The material includes letters from students, bankers, high school teachers and priests. It includes communists and conservatives, centrists and liberals. Politically, however, it is dominated by social democrats. Palmstierna was an active party member, and in 1967–1968, he was given increasingly important tasks. For instance, he belonged to the group preparing the Social Democrats’ first environmental policy program. In March 1968, he left the Karolinska Institute to work at the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency. Six months later, he joined the Environmental Advisory Council. 

Even more interesting, however, is to see how he was invited to public television and the various branches of the labor movement. Most important in this context was the fact that in December 1967, the cooperative insurance company Folksam (the largest insurance company in Sweden at the time) decided to launch the first national environmental campaign: “Front mot miljöförstöringen” (Front against Environmental Degradation). Hans Palmstierna prepared the study material, recorded videos and designed the campaign. The basic idea was to get young people involved in environmental issues so that they would then exert pressure on decision-makers. The campaign culminated in the spring of 1969, when school students throughout Sweden organized public hearings with local politicians and business leaders. 

At this time, there was no “environmental movement” in the current sense of the word. There was no Greenpeace, no Friends of the Earth, and the term “Green Wave” had yet to be coined. But people’s involvement in relation to the environment was on the rise and it was channeled – as shown by the Folksam campaign – through established social organizations. The letter material also shows that student associations adopted a prominent role. At the Chalmers University of Technology, a group of architectural students created the exhibition “Än sen då” (So What?). It was launched in the spring of 1968 after which it toured the country. Other students signed up as volunteers in the new popular movement beginning to take shape. None of this existed in the spring of 1967. 

Exactly how this chapter will turn out remains to be seen. I have given myself some 25 pages and outlined a rough structure that is essentially chronological. The latter aspect is important to me since one of my points with this chapter is to highlight chain reactions. In other words, showing how someone’s actions led others to do something, which, in turn, had further consequences. To some extent, I also want to show how the “reaction time” differed between different organizations and groups. 

Nevertheless, there is no doubt that this represents a fun and creative phase of the research and writing process. I here find a sense of productive uncertainty not found in chapters where the bulk of my work was done a long time ago. Obviously, I also find lots of new leads that I’m curious to follow up. What, for example, is hidden in the Folksam archives? How difficult would it be to get in contact with people involved in hearings in the spring of 1969? What is preserved in school basements? Such as at Porthälla in Partille, which in April 1968 organized an environmental week ending with Hans Palmstierna coming to give a presentation. And what can we find out about the hundreds of study circles organized by adult education associations ABF, Vuxenskolan and others? 

There is certainly no shortage of ideas. But if I am to finish this book, further research will have to wait. “Get a plan and stick to it,” as the saying goes. But it’s certainly tempting to turn over just another stone.

---------

Do you want to sign up for the blogs mailing-list? Send an e-mail to david.larsson_heidenblad@hist.lu.se

First things first (synopsis part 2)

The second chapter of my book is one of the most important chapters. It is about the fall of 1967 – the point in time when I believe that the major breakthrough of environmental issues occurred in Sweden. Since this is one of my main points in the book, I have decided to put the chapter on the fall of 1967 immediately after the introduction. My aim is that even a reader quickly browsing through the book shouldn’t be able to miss this. 

For some, this chronological point may seem trivial and plain. I don’t think so. Ask someone when modern environmentalism took off and I can basically guarantee that if you receive an answer at all, it will be one of the following: 1) At the beginning of the 1960s when Rachel Carson published Silent Spring or 2) in the 1970s with the Green Wave. Perhaps someone will mention the photograph of Earth from space on Christmas Eve 1968, the celebration of Earth Day in 1970 or perhaps the Stockholm Conference in 1972. I would argue that all these answers – as far as Sweden is concerned – are wrong. The major breakthrough took place in the fall of 1967 and the most important actors were Swedish scientists addressing the public and warning of a global disaster. Chemist Hans Palmstierna was the most influential, but he was far from alone. 

It’s obviously possible to critically discuss my finding. Perhaps in five to ten years’ time, someone will be able to prove to me wrong. I don’t mind that. The purpose of my research is not to establish exactly what occurred once and for all. My ambition is to make a contribution, support it as well as I can and then see what happens. 

So, my book has been structured on the basis of the principle that what I find the most important result should come first. This means that I’m departing from a more conventional structure used in the field of history. That is to say, an introductory chapter, followed by a background chapter and then the actual study. 

I have instead chosen to put my most important empirical chapter before the background chapter. This means that the book does not have a linear chronological structure. Chapter two focuses on the fall of 1967. Chapter three starts off in the late 1940s and ends in the summer of 1967. The point of this structure is to shift the focus toward what I want my readers to take to heart. In other words: “DLH argues that the breakthrough occurred in the fall of 1967. Then, X, Y and Z took place. This differs from the previous time period due to A, B and C.” 

When I started working on my synopsis, I hadn’t yet arrived at this structure. At that time, I had a more conventional chronological structure in mind. I am sure that such a structure could also have worked out fine. But that would have resulted in my own research and results ending up in a more obscure location in the book. 

But the second book I’m writing is mine. It is based on the research I have performed and seeks to show what I have concluded. It will be my contribution and it is hardly my job to apologize for this. That is why I have chosen a structure placing my main point at center stage.

This is the second part in the synopsis-series. Read the first one here

---------

Do you want to sign up for the blogs mailing-list? Send an e-mail to david.larsson_heidenblad@hist.lu.se

What is the aim of this book? (synopsis part 1)

Following this week’s blog post, Linde Lindkvist asked me how I crafted my synopsis. It turned out that this question required a fairly long answer. In fact, even a two-part answer. My synopsis has in fact emerged over a number of years. There are embryos from 2016 and onwards. However, other commitments have emerged from time to time. I’m happy about that today. My thought and writing process has benefitted from this extra time.

The actual research process, however, has been long and winding. Starting in the fall of 2014, I have studied the breakthrough of environmental issues in various projects. I started with the intense Swedish debate on the future in the spring of 1972, after which I mainly focused on the emergence of environmental concern in the second half of the 1960s, in particular the fall of 1967. This, I would argue, is when the major breakthrough occurred in Swedish society. This is also one of the key points I want to make in my book. 

The bulk of my results are published in peer-reviewed journal articles. Quite a few people have read one or two of these. But I’m reasonably sure that only a handful of people have read them all. I probably know all these readers personally. This is obviously not optimal. If I want my most important findings to reach more people, then the journal article format won’t do. I need a monograph. 

During the course of the research process, I have thought a lot about whether to write in Swedish or English. In terms of my CV and career, the choice is simple. A monograph published by an international publishing house greatly increases your chances of getting permanent positions and receiving future research grants. In light of this, I read the book Thinking Like Your Editor (2003) in the spring of 2017 and started to prepare myself to write a book proposal. One of the things this book highlighted for me was a clearer audience focus. Who do I want to read my book and why? And what do I want the book to do to me? Who do I want to become? 

These are not questions with simple and obvious answers. As I see it, however, it’s important to carefully consider them before starting to craft a synopsis. Because a book is written to be read by others. It also does things – and not just to its readers. Books may result in academics being perceived, and treated, as experts. But in which areas do you want to be an expert? What do you want to do in such a role? And what do you want the finished book to result in? Do you want to continue doing research and writing in the same field? Or do you want to pursue a different path? 

The answers to these questions are key for crafting a synopsis. In addition, it’s obviously necessary to take into account what you can actually say something substantial and reasonably original about. The book must be based on your research, your knowledge and your ability. Otherwise, it will never be written. 

So, what do I want my book to do? Who do I want to read it? Well, first of all, I want the book to put an end to my research on the breakthrough of environmental issues. I have spent more than five years on this theme, and I am now ready to move on to new fields of research. There are 5–6 larger points I want to make. I want to offer these as a comprehensive contribution to the field of environmental history. My hope is that other academics will relate to and build upon these points. As far as I am concerned, I am – at least for the foreseeable future – done. I will have said what I can on this topic. 

Second, I want the book to illustrate the intellectual potential of the new history of knowledge. Simultaneously with my research on the breakthrough of environmental issues, I have tried to establish and develop this field together with a growing group of close colleagues. In my second book, I would like to give a concrete example of how a history of knowledge approach – with a focus on social circulation of knowledge – impacts how we write history. History of knowledge is not just a new name for things historians have done for a long time. Here, I want my second book to constitute a convincing case in point. 

Third, I believe that the topic of my book is not only current but also relevant to society, which, in turn, requires me to write for a wider audience than just my peers. Environmental and climate issues are no less topical today than they were in 1970. However, medium-term temporal perspectives are uncommon in the public and political debate. I find this problematic, as these are the intervals where lives are lived, decisions taken, systems built, policies made and changes occur. May we in fact learn from the historical experiences made during the last fifty years? Not impossible. 

These are the three things I want my book to achieve. The readers I address are thus both the scholarly community – especially environmental historians, historians of knowledge and post-war historians, but also academics in the environmental humanities. In addition, I write for a general public interested in societal issues and caring for the environment, some of whom have personal memories from the years I focus on.

For these reasons, I also write in Swedish. I think this gives me the best opportunity to be read and understood by both of these groups. Eventually, however, I still hope that the book will be translated into English so that it may be read by the international scholarly community. 

This post has already turned out to be quite long, which is why I end it here. In the next part of this series, I discuss how I proceeded from these more overall goals and ambitions to craft a synopsis.

---------

Do you want to sign up for the blogs mailing-list? Send an e-mail to david.larsson_heidenblad@hist.lu.se